Freddie Gray's Death Ruled a Homicide; 6 Officers Charged!

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Neutrality
a reply to: Xcathdra

You don't say? I never knew that /sarcasm off. Do you realize the force you would need to sustain the injuries he did? I'm guessing no. Do you realize the coroner ruled his death a homicide? I'm guessing that's also a no.

They also stated the cause of death is related to an injury sustained in the back of the van, specifically a bolt. Now, if the van is not moving fast enough to cause that injury then how did it happen?

Since we have rudimentary information to go on thus far, it could have just as easily been three cops throwing the victim headfirst into the front of the van that caused his broken neck.
Just to be clear, we don't cuff and shackle our kids, then throw them headfirst into a metal wall when we go on summer vacation.

a reply to: butcherguy

I guess Xcathdra is buying into the whole "he did it to himself theory"..... Typical.

originally posted by: butcherguy
Just to be clear, we don't cuff and shackle our kids, then throw them headfirst into a metal wall when we go on summer vacation.

I've considered it in the past.

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: butcherguy

I guess Xcathdra is buying into the whole "he did it to himself theory"..... Typical.

There are still quite a few people that want us to believe that people's necks spontaneously snap for no good reason.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Neutrality
a reply to: Xcathdra

You don't say? I never knew that /sarcasm off. Do you realize the force you would need to sustain the injuries he did? I'm guessing no. Do you realize the coroner ruled his death a homicide? I'm guessing that's also a no.

They also stated the cause of death is related to an injury sustained in the back of the van, specifically a bolt. Now, if the van is not moving fast enough to cause that injury then how did it happen?

Since we have rudimentary information to go on thus far, it could have just as easily been three cops throwing the victim headfirst into the front of the van that caused his broken neck.
Just to be clear, we don't cuff and shackle our kids, then throw them headfirst into a metal wall when we go on summer vacation.

it could have just as easily been three cops throwing the victim headfirst into the front of the van that caused his broken neck.

Very good point I had not considered that.

Also one of the big problems I see so far is that very few people are referring to the probable cause affidavit that the DA read.
Instead many people are listening to what has been said in the news which is almost always inaccurate in the early going. I have been jumping around all the news channels. Every one of them is skipping the part of her statement when she said the injury occurred.


All this endless speculation about the reasoning behind the charges being leverage to get testimony from their fellow officers. I don't by into completely.

I honestly think that after she went over the information given plus reports from her own detectives and the coroners report I think she might have got angry.

And to use a old adage " threw the book at them".

a reply to: Xcathdra

My gosh, how you can't understand the safety of a seatbelt is astounding. I TOLD YOU THE VAN WAS A METAL UNPADDED SEAT PREVIOUSLY(yes that needed caps) If you can't distinguish the difference in said van between being restrained by a seatbelt and not, there literally is no worth in discussing this with you, G'day fine sir/ma'am. Keep up the ignorance

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Neutrality

BPD adopted a policy requiring the use of seatbelts for prisoners in April of 2015, before this incident (about a week / 2 weeks actually).

For decades prior it was not a requirement.

So, disregarding decades before, we ARE acknowledging that it became a policy prior to this incident? And they DISREGARDED the policy? Yep, sucks to be those cops

originally posted by: Neutrality
So, disregarding decades before, we ARE acknowledging that it became a policy prior to this incident? And they DISREGARDED the policy? Yep, sucks to be those cops

A 2 week old policy is easy to miss. OTOH, slamming someone into a neck bolt is sort of over the top.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Greathouse



Secondly, I would want to see the gps readout on how fast the van was going to support the theory of him being slammed into the wall by the driver slamming on his breaks.

Have you NOT realized GPS is NOT accurate and would NEVER be used in a court of law? I mean freaking deny ignorance...Cmon a poster like yourself should KNOW the inaccuracy of GPS!

originally posted by: Neutrality
Have you NOT realized GPS is NOT accurate and would NEVER be used in a court of law? I mean freaking deny ignorance...Cmon a poster like yourself should KNOW the inaccuracy of GPS!

GPS is quite accurate. Any particular receiver can be off, depending on how many satellites it had for reference and what sort of algorithms it uses.

But GPS in general is far far more accurate than a speedo.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Neutrality
So, disregarding decades before, we ARE acknowledging that it became a policy prior to this incident? And they DISREGARDED the policy? Yep, sucks to be those cops

A 2 week old policy is easy to miss. OTOH, slamming someone into a neck bolt is sort of over the top.

A 2 week old policy is OK to miss if your the guy in the drive-thru, but the guy upholding the law? NOPE no excuse.

a reply to: Bedlam

not accurate enough for a trial by law

No one knows what happened at the 'secret' stop, with certainty, anyway.
I say secret because it was a secret to the public until the news broke that a store owner had security video of the previously undisclosed stop.
For all we know, they took him out and took turns stomping on his neck at that stop.

a reply to: butcherguy

Maybe, but was it racial?

Doesn't seem to be the case now that the six bad cops mugshots have been shown..

originally posted by: Neutrality

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Neutrality
So, disregarding decades before, we ARE acknowledging that it became a policy prior to this incident? And they DISREGARDED the policy? Yep, sucks to be those cops

A 2 week old policy is easy to miss. OTOH, slamming someone into a neck bolt is sort of over the top.

A 2 week old policy is OK to miss if your the guy in the drive-thru, but the guy upholding the law? NOPE no excuse.

It was instituted because of previous deaths and injuries..... including the death of Dondi Johnson (broken spine), which cost the city a lot of money in settlements.

a reply to: butcherguy

There is also quite a healthy dose of irony concerning that stop. The owner of that camera recorded it on a laptop in the store. Luckily he handed a copy of the recording over to the police. Because the rioters looted that store and stole the laptop. Lol



Edit; Oh crap, I failed a political correctness again. Are you allowed to call them rioters now or is that racist? Just in case I should have referred to them as overly excited protesters.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: butcherguy

Maybe, but was it racial?

Doesn't seem to be the case now that the six bad cops mugshots have been shown..

The problem isn't the color of the people involved... it is that they are cops.
They have already been shown to be lying in this case.
They have a real problem with people that do not kowtow to them and will mess you up if you give them crap.

a reply to: butcherguy

Exactly the reason that disregarding the new policy should make all of these cops face charges, and the heaviest ones imposed at that.

a reply to: butcherguy

I wonder, and it may have already been mentioned here..I wonder if the beat down was payback or retribution.

Gray was a career criminal and would have been known to these cops.

It's good to see these animals are getting the book thrown at them.

a reply to: Chadwickus

Yes.
It could be that he said the wrong thing to one of them or even spit on them.